W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: tracking-ISSUE-184 (Walter van Holst): 3rd party dependencies in 1st party content [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:49:46 +0200
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <99923dc3b171bed4864f22769f1acee7@xs4all.nl>
Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker schreef op 2012-10-24 
19:07:
> tracking-ISSUE-184 (Walter van Holst): 3rd party dependencies in 1st
> party content [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/184
>
> Raised by: Walter van Holst
> On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance
>
> As anyone that plays around with ad blockers, selective javascript
> tools, cookie killers and assorted privacy-enhancing browser
> extensions can attest there is a steady increase of content provided
> by what under the current text would be a 1st party that cannot be
> viewed unless content from a 3rd party is also accepted by the UA, be
> it cookies or javascript.
>
> This raises an interesting situation if we have DNT. For example we
> have a 1st party that is trusted by the user and also claims to 
> comply
> to DNT and a 3rd party that is neither. Since the 1st party content 
> is
> technically dependent on 3rd party content, the user has the choice
> between either granting consent to the 3rd party in order to have the
> 1st party function properly or not getting the content at all.
>
> To what extent is such consent informed, genuine and meaningful?

I would like to add the question the element of free (i.e. freely 
given): to what extent is such consent freely given.

(Recital 17 (2002/58/EC): Consent may be given by any appropriate 
method enabling a freely given, specific and informed  indication of the 
user’s whishes.)
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:37 UTC